Fair Use of Monsters

The Fair Use doctrine in Copyright law got a bit of an expansion last week in Warren Publishing Co. v. Spurlock, a decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Photos of artwork used in a biography of the artist is fair use.

The dispute was not between the book publisher and the artist, but instead, between the published of several now defunct monster movie magazines  and the publisher of the book, Famous Monster Movie Art of Basil Gogos.  Apparently the work of Gogos has appeared on more than 50 magazine covers. Photos of some of those magazine covers were included in the book about Gogos.

 

The Court ruled the use of the paintings was transformative, as the book was a biography and retrospective of the artist’s work, a goal very different from that of the magazines.

 

The Court did not rule on whether Gogos had assigned his copyright to Warren Publishing.  If the dispute had been between the artist and his biographer, one wonders whether the outcome might be different?

 

Hat tip to Law.com.

 

P.S. As a writer, I’ve always had an interest in copyright law. Since I am now in a firm where IP is something of a strength, I am paying more attention than ever. Hence, the new category.

 

 

Another Cyberlaw ruling from the Ninth

For the second day in a row, the Ninth Circuit issued an important ruling relating to Internet copyright ruling.

In Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com, Inc., the Ninth Circuit lifted a preliminary injunction preventing Google from showing thumbnail-size photos from Perfect 10’s site. The Court reasoned that displaying the thumbnail-sized photos, which requires Google to copy and store an image of Perfect 10’s photos on its own computers, is an infringement. But the Court held that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show a likelihood of prevailing over a defense. Perfect 10did not show a likelihood of overcoming Google’s fair use defense because the thumbnails are transformative, meaning they alter the original works with “new expression, meaning or message.” The thumbnails are transformative because they serve a very different purpose than the full size image. Additionally, Google’s use serves the interests of the public and promotes the purpose of copyright law.  

However, the Court also held Google could be secondarily liable for allowing links to web sites with pirated photos, if Google has knowledge of the infringing activity and contributes to its occurrence.